In News:

• India has proposed the Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (CAFE) 3 norms, drafted by the Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE), aiming to tighten fuel efficiency standards, reduce vehicular emissions, and promote electric and alternative fuel vehicles.
• First introduced in 2017, CAFE norms regulate fuel consumption and CO? emissions for passenger vehicles weighing up to 3,500 kg, including petrol, diesel, CNG, LPG, hybrid, and electric vehicles.
• The earlier iteration, CAFE 2 (2022-23), capped fuel consumption at 4.78 litres/100 km and CO? emissions at 113 g/km, with penalties for non-compliance.

Need for CAFE 3

Current Indian norms inadvertently favourheavier vehicles like SUVs while imposing stringent targets on smaller cars, unlike international practices in the USA, EU, China, and Japan, where light vehicles enjoy relaxed emission standards. CAFE 3 seeks to align India with global best practices, revive the small car segment, and incentivisegreen mobility, particularly electric vehicles (EVs) and hybrids.

Key Features of CAFE 3 Norms

1. Applicability

• Targets M1 category passenger vehicles (seating up to nine people, maximum weight 3,500 kg).
• Non-compliance will attract penalties under the Energy Conservation Act, 2001.

2. Efficiency Targets

• Efficiency formula: [0.002 × (W – 1170) + c], measured in petrol-equivalent litres/100 km, where W is fleet weight, 1,170 kg is a fixed constant, 0.002 is a multiplier, and ‘c’ decreases yearly from 3.7264 (FY28) to 3.0139 (FY32).
• Lighter vehicles benefit from easier compliance, motivating manufacturers to focus on small cars.
• Additional relaxation: 3.0 g CO?/km (capped at 9 g/km) for compact cars (<909 kg, ≤1200 cc engine, ≤4,000 mm length).

3. Incentives for EVs and Alternative Fuels

• Super credits: Each EV sold counts three times toward fleet compliance; plug-in hybrids 2.5×, strong hybrids 2×, flex-fuel ethanol vehicles 1.5×.
• Carbon Neutrality Factor (CNF): Offers relaxation based on fuel type (e.g., E20–E30 petrol vehicles 8% CNF; strong hybrids 22.3%).

4. Emissions Pooling

• Up to three manufacturers can form a pool, treated as a single entity for compliance.
• Pool managers are legally responsible for penalties, allowing strategic partnerships, cost-sharing, and smoother adherence to targets.

Policy Complementarities

• GST reforms (GST 2.0) reduced taxes on small cars from 28% to 18%, complementing the relaxation measures under CAFE 3.
• By incentivisingEVs, hybrids, and small vehicles, the norms aim to reduce oil import dependency and advance India’s climate commitments under the Paris Agreement.

Challenges

• Industry adaptation: Transitioning fleets to comply with stricter norms while managing costs.
• Consumer acceptance: Affordability and infrastructure readiness for EVs and hybrids.
• Infrastructure readiness: Charging and fuel infrastructure for alternative vehicles needs significant expansion.

Conclusion

CAFE 3 represents a transformative step in India’s vehicular emission regulation, combining fuel efficiency improvements, emission reductions, and green mobility incentives. By aligning with global practices, reviving the small car segment, and encouraging electric and hybrid vehicles, the norms have the potential to accelerate sustainable transportation while addressing environmental and energy security goals. Successful implementation will require coordinated action between manufacturers, policymakers, and consumers to build a cleaner, efficient, and resilient automotive sector in India.

In News:

India stands at a critical juncture where the pursuit of economic growth must align with environmental sustainability. The transition to a green economy offers an opportunity to reshape the country’s development paradigm—one that integrates ecological balance, inclusive livelihoods, and technological innovation within a landscape-driven framework.

India’s Green Economy: Growth and Scope

India’s bioeconomy has expanded remarkably from $10 billion in 2014 to $165.7 billion in 2024, growing sixteenfold and accounting for 4.25% of the national GDP. This growth, driven by over 10,000 bio-based start-ups, spans biofuels, bioplastics, pharmaceuticals, and bioinformatics. The industrial bioeconomy contributes nearly half the sectoral share, while India’s achievements—such as 20% ethanol blending in petrol and becoming the third-largest pharmaceutical producer by volume—reflect the scale of progress.

A green economy, however, extends beyond bio-based industries. It encompasses low-carbon growth, circular resource use, ecosystem restoration, and inclusive employment. By 2030, it is estimated to create 35 million green jobs, strengthening India’s resilience against climate shocks and enhancing energy security under Aatmanirbhar Bharat.

Challenges in the Green Transition

Despite this momentum, India’s green growth exhibits deep regional and socio-economic disparities. Urban centers like Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Gujarat dominate green investments, while the North-Eastern and tribal states contribute less than 6% despite abundant natural resources. This spatial imbalance mirrors unequal access to clean energy, irrigation, and digital infrastructure.

Simultaneously, energy transition dilemmas persist. While renewables are expanding, fossil fuel subsidies—still around 40%—undermine emission reduction efforts. In agriculture, solar pump deployment risks groundwater depletion, highlighting the complexity of balancing environmental and livelihood goals. Hard-to-abate sectors such as steel, cement, and power, which contribute nearly 23% of GHG emissions, face prohibitive costs for green technologies—often four times higher than conventional alternatives.

Social inclusion remains another challenge. Women hold only 11% of rooftop solar jobs, and their share in technical green roles is as low as 1–3%. Similarly, tribal and marginalised communities remain passive beneficiaries rather than active stakeholders in climate action.

Reimagining the Green Economy through Landscapes

A landscape-based approach can make India’s green transition more inclusive and ecologically coherent. Landscapes represent interconnected systems of land, water, biodiversity, and human activity. Integrating these systems through participatory planning—from village to national level—can enhance ecosystem services such as air and water regulation, soil fertility, and climate moderation.

Institutionally, leveraging 2.5 lakh Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) and 12 million women-led Self-Help Groups (SHGs) can embed community ownership into green initiatives. Promoting tribal-led bioeconomy models based on non-timber forest produce, agro-waste reuse, and medicinal flora can align conservation with livelihoods.

Technology and fiscal innovation must complement this vision—through green budgeting, public procurement of sustainable products, and expansion of 5G/6G labs for greening digital infrastructure. Decentralised waste management and circular economy practices are vital, especially as urban areas generate 75% of India’s solid waste.

Conclusion

India’s green transformation must evolve from a sectoral to a landscape-driven, community-based model that harmonises economic growth with ecological integrity. Empowering local institutions, mainstreaming gender, and integrating traditional knowledge with modern innovation will be crucial to achieving a just and resilient green future. By 2047, the goal should not merely be higher GDP, but ecological regeneration, social equity, and global climate leadership.

Context:
The detention of climate activist Sonam Wangchuk under the National Security Act (NSA), 1980, has reignited a long-standing debate on the balance between national security and civil liberties in India. Wangchuk, who has been leading the movement for Ladakh’s statehood and Sixth Schedule protections, was detained following alleged provocative speeches that, according to the administration, triggered violent protests in Leh leading to four deaths and several injuries. His case illustrates the continuing tension between state power and individual freedoms under India’s preventive detention framework.

Understanding Preventive Detention in India

Preventive detention refers to the practice of detaining an individual not for a crime already committed, but to prevent them from acting in a manner considered prejudicial to public order, security, or essential supplies. Unlike punitive detention, which follows conviction through due process, preventive detention is anticipatory in nature—aimed at averting potential threats before they materialise.

The Constitutional sanction for preventive detention is provided under Article 22 (Clauses 3–7), which permits Parliament and State legislatures to enact laws allowing such detention. A person can be held for up to three months without approval from an Advisory Board of judges, and longer if such approval is obtained. However, detainees are denied the right to legal counsel before the Advisory Board, and authorities may withhold information on grounds of public interest—limiting transparency and accountability.

Evolution of Preventive Detention Laws

Preventive detention has deep colonial roots, beginning with wartime laws such as the Defence of India Acts and the Rowlatt Act (1919). Post-Independence, the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, institutionalised this power, followed by the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), 1971, which gained notoriety during the Emergency (1975–77). Although MISA was repealed in 1978, preventive detention returned with the National Security Act (NSA), 1980, reflecting the persistence of this legal mechanism in India’s security architecture.

Provisions and Safeguards under the NSA

The NSA empowers the Central and State governments, as well as authorisedDistrict Magistrates and Police Commissioners, to detain individuals to prevent actions “prejudicial to India’s defence, foreign relations, national security, public order, or essential supplies.”

• Detention orders operate like arrest warrants, allowing transfer across states and detention up to 12 months.
• Grounds for detention must be communicated within 5 to 15 days, and the detainee can submit a representation to the government.
• An Advisory Board of High Court judges must review the case within three weeks and order release if “no sufficient cause” exists.

However, no legal representation is allowed before the Board, and the government may withhold crucial information—leaving wide discretion in official hands.

Use and Misuse: Judicial and Public Concerns

Over the decades, NSA has been used in cases involving separatists, radical preachers, gangsters, and protesters. Notable instances include the detention of Amritpal Singh (2023), Bhim Army chief Chandrashekhar Azad (2017), and Dr. Kafeel Khan (2020). Courts have repeatedly intervened in cases of misuse, emphasising that the Act cannot be a substitute for ordinary criminal law. The Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling striking down detention for kerosene black-marketing underscored this misuse.

Critics argue that preventive detention contradicts the spirit of fundamental rights under Articles 19, 21, and 22, allowing incarceration without trial and enabling governments to suppress dissent under the guise of maintaining order. Scholars contend that Article 22 itself legitimises preventive detention, reflecting what Erich Fromm described as a “fear of freedom”—a societal tendency to trade liberty for perceived security.

Conclusion

The National Security Act remains one of India’s most powerful yet controversial laws. While it provides governments with a vital tool to prevent threats to national security and public order, its frequent and often arbitrary invocation erodes constitutional guarantees of liberty and due process.
The detention of Sonam Wangchuk serves as a stark reminder that preventive detention laws, though constitutionally sanctioned, sit uneasily within a democratic framework. India’s challenge lies in ensuring that security imperatives do not eclipse fundamental freedoms, reaffirming the Constitution’s promise of liberty, justice, and accountability.